Industry Committee on Feb. 12th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call this meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to meeting number 110 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 24, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C-27, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

I'd like to welcome all the witnesses here today.

From the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, we have Eleanor Noble, national president, who is joined by Marie Kelly, national executive director. We also have Stéphanie Hénault, director of legal affairs at the Association nationale des éditeurs de livres, as well as Marie-Julie Desrochers, executive director of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expression. From the Directors Guild of Canada, we have Dave Forget, national executive director, and Samuel Bischoff, manager of policy and regulatory affairs. Lastly, from Music Canada, we have Patrick Rogers, chief executive officer.

Thanks for being here with us this Monday morning as we're nearing the end of this study on Bill C-27. You are generating, as I see already, a lot of excitement in the room, so thanks for making the time to enlighten us with your testimony and your answers to our questions today.

Without further ado, we can start with Ms. Noble for five minutes.

The floor is yours.

[Eleanor Noble, National President, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists]

Good morning.

I'm Eleanor Noble, the national president of the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this committee on behalf of the 30,000 members of our union. With me today is Marie Kelly, our national executive director. She's here with me to address any questions you may have.

For 80-plus years, ACTRA has represented professional performers across Canada who bring Canadian stories to life. We play a vital role in a nearly $14-billion industry that generates 240,000 jobs a year. We came to this committee today because we are concerned about the use of artificial intelligence and similar technologies in our industry.

To be clear, there are some positives to the adoption of technology in our industry when used responsibly. That said, our members are increasingly concerned about the unbridled and unmitigated use of AI in our industry and outside of it, which has the potential to significantly and harmfully impact our ability to work and make a living in the screen industry.

Last year, we undertook a comprehensive survey of our members about the impact of AI. Outside of collective bargaining, we have never had more responses to a member survey. Let me share with you some of the high-level takeaways: 98% of ACTRA performers are concerned about the potential misuse of their name, image and likeness by AI; 93% of respondents are concerned that AI will eventually replace human actors, beginning with background work and dubbing.

We have seen real examples of harmful use already. It was brought to ACTRA's attention last year that the voice of one of ACTRA's minor performers—underage performers—was uploaded to an AI text-to-speech voices list on a public website that allowed users to manipulate her voice to say crude, R-rated things. This is a minor, I'll remind you. This is unacceptable.

Similarly, an ACTRA performer on a video game was downloaded by players and, with the use of AI, their voice and game character were manipulated to say obscene things and to perform sexual acts, all without the knowledge or consent of the actor. This was accessible online for two years before the actor became aware, at which point ACTRA was contacted to step in.

These are just two examples of the harmful manipulations that performers—and, frankly, many Canadians—face. I think we can agree as Canadians that these are extremely harmful violations. We—you—have an opportunity to take action in this bill to protect us, and we are asking you to do so.

We are pleased that the government is reviewing the impact of AI in a multi-faceted manner. We believe it's important to update the privacy regime in Canada and to put a framework in place to ensure AI developers and deployers must take action to mitigate the potential for harm from their technologies.

We want to congratulate the government on bringing Bill C-27 forward and, in particular, we support your intention to ensure that consent is required for the use of biometric information, including a performer's name, image and likeness. Clarity around informed consent, we hope, will help in our work to ensure the industry does not ambush performers into signing away their rights.

This committee must push this bill further to clarify the type of harm performers experience on an all-too-regular basis. Not only is AI causing personal harm to performers like me, but it also risks our livelihoods and reputations. In the entertainment business, our reputation—including our name, image and likeness—is all we have. We are the brand, which we protect. The difference between getting a job one day and not getting one the next can come down to the most minute things, including one's reputation.

Sadly, reputational harm is not currently encompassed by Bill C-27. The definition of harm to include “psychological harm” or “economic loss to an individual” does not sufficiently encompass the reputational harm we experience. Due to the nature of our business, we might not be able to show an exact circumstance of work lost due to a deepfake or manipulation, but there is no doubt that damage to a performer's reputation means real and tangible loss for our careers.

We have submitted to this committee our proposed language to rectify this gap under the legislation. We strongly urge this committee to amend the definition of harm to ensure that performers' rights are protected under this bill.

Finally, the government must take action to amend other statutes to mitigate the harm of AI on Canadian performers. Specifically, we believe that the Copyright Act is fundamentally biased against performers by not ascribing a moral right to their work. We urge this committee to take action, either through this bill or with haste elsewhere, to protect Canadian performers. We understand that the upcoming budget bill may contain amendments to the Copyright Act, and we ask that you raise with the Minister of Finance the urgency of the need to provide moral rights to performers in it, as musicians have.

Committee members, we recognize that this bill is only scratching the surface of the public policy tools the government has on this file. We urge you to take us seriously. Our sector is an economic driver in this country, with real workers who strive to make a living and contribute to our Canadian cultural life. We need you, as legislators, to ensure that we can be protected and can continue to work today and into the future.

Thank you. Marie and I would be happy to take any of your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Ms. Noble.

Ms. Hénault, the floor is yours.

[Stéphanie Hénault, Director of Legal Affairs, Association nationale des éditeurs de livres]

On behalf of the Association nationale des éditeurs de livres, I want to thank you for having me here in connection with this study on the first legislative initiative to specifically regulate artificial intelligence systems in Canada.

My name is Stéphanie Hénault, and I am the director of legal affairs at the association, which represents francophone book publishing companies across the country. Together with the Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois, the association that represents authors in Quebec, we have established Copibec–Gestion collective des droits de reproduction, which offers copyright and royalty management solutions for users and rights holders. Associated with the International Publishers Association, the largest publishing federation in the world, we promote publishing as an economic, cultural and social development driver and are leaders in its evolution. By collectively participating in major international fairs and salons, hosting foreign publishers, booksellers and journalists here in Canada and taking part in numerous foundational projects, we are involved in numerous efforts to promote the exposure of French Canadian books.

For example, we established the Entrepôt ANEL-De Marque, which has fostered the successful development of a business model that complements that of the print industry, and we support our members in implementing digital strategies that promote their development. More specifically, we promote books in all formats in francophone countries and the translation of those books in countries such as Germany, Argentina, China, Egypt, Spain, the United States, Mexico, Iceland, Sweden, Serbia and Turkey, to name only a few.

The more Canadian literature is read internationally, the more popular it becomes among readers. The more often it's noticed by juries, the more awards it wins and the more it sells on all continents, including in our own country. The following numbers show how successful French Canadian books have become. In Quebec alone, sales of new books represent a market valued at approximately $680 million a year. Also in Quebec, the market share of francophone publishing companies represents 50% of sales, even though 900 foreign publishers distribute their books here.

In the artificial intelligence era, the entire Canadian book publishing industry needs our support, now more than ever, in establishing updated policies and programs by encouraging the lawful supply of content in this field.

This is why we took an active part in the recent consultation on generative AI and copyright by supporting the responsible development of artificial intelligence. We did it with Access Copyright, the Association of Canadian Publishers, the Association des éditeurs de langue anglaise du Québec, the Canadian Authors Association, the Canadian Publishers' Council, Copibec, the Literary Press Group of Canada, the Regroupement des éditeurs franco-canadiens, the Writers' Union of Canada, the Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois, as well as with our partners in the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.

The global publishing industry relies on copyright, particularly the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the use of works and to engage in fee-based licensing. These rights are engaged when works are integrated in AI systems and when those systems are used if works are reproduced within them. For rights holders, the ability to grant or withhold permission to use works in these ways is as important as the compensation that may follow therefrom, particularly when a production of an artificial intelligence system competes with the work, substitutes it or undermines the author's moral right, to name only those forms of harm.

In the British, European and North American markets, we are seeing increasing numbers of copyright violation actions against AI models and trade agreements that are being reached to allow content to be licensed for text and data search purposes.

In Canada, licensing for text and data search is a growing market. We implore the government, on behalf of the book publishing industry, to encourage that industry by amending part 3 of Bill C-27 such that it clearly establishes that artificial intelligence must be developed and deployed responsibly, in the following manner: first, by implementing procedures that guarantee compliance with copyright legislation when its models are trained; second, by establishing obligations of transparency in the publication and availability of information on content integrated in its systems; and, lastly, by clearly and expressly stating in its own conditions of licensing with its users that the latter are required to comply with copyright.

The Copyright Act affords copyright holders remedies for addressing counterfeit cases involving AI developers, suppliers and users. First, however, AI framework legislation must at least provide that the intellectual property of Canadians be respected. Otherwise, the Canadian royalties market could well be hit even harder as systems will be developed and deployed secretly, unfairly and unlawfully.

Let me be very clear: we are not opposed to artificial intelligence, but we do contend that all Canadian market actors must support the legitimate interests of authors and publishers, as well as their essential contribution to innovation, knowledge, culture, diversity, cultural outreach, the economy and wealth of the country. We therefore emphasize that you must ensure our country at least complies with international practices respectful of authors and publishers, as Europe is doing with its new AI legislation, to prevent Canada from looking like a banana republic of international technology companies.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that authors and publishers are also counting on you to improve the Copyright Act, failing which they will be unable to receive the legitimate royalties that their international counterparts receive when their works are reproduced at certain educational institutions. I would also remind you that this priority was supported by the Standing Committee on Science and Research in its November 2023 report entitled Support for the Commercialization of Intellectual Property.

On behalf of the Association nationale des éditeurs de livres, thank you very much for listening. I will be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Ms. Hénault.

Go ahead, Ms. Desrochers.

[Marie-Julie Desrochers, Executive Director, Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for your invitation and for this opportunity for the cultural sector to comment on Bill C-27.

I am the executive director of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which this year celebrates its 25th anniversary. The coalition consists of more than 50 members from Canada's cultural sector: anglophone and francophone unions, professional associations and collection societies. We cover a broad and diverse range of audiovisual, musical, digital arts, book and publishing disciplines, as well as the visual and performing arts. We also represent more than 350,000 creators and nearly 3,000 businesses in the cultural industry.

I'm in good company today, surrounded by three coalition members: the Association nationale des éditeurs de livres du Québec, the Directors Guild of Canada and the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists. This small sample represents only part of the impact that the development of artificial intelligence has had on our sector. I encourage you to continue consulting the cultural sector so you can also hear from the representatives of visual artists, screenwriters, producers, composers, authors and others.

Our coalition's primary mission is to secure a cultural exclusion in trade agreements in order to preserve Canada's cultural sovereignty. We also want to ensure that Canada adopts public policies that guarantee protection and promotion for the diversity of cultural expressions, including in the digital environment. Our efforts build on the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. That UNESCO convention came to be as a result of the concerted efforts of Quebec and Canada, and France as well, and I would note that Canada was the first country to ratify it.

We are here today to comment on a bill that it is designed to protect Canadians from the risks presented by the spectacular developments in artificial intelligence, generative AI in particular.

The 2005 convention states that cultural diversity is "indispensable for peace and security at the local, national and international levels". In other words, the development of responsible artificial intelligence must take that diversity into account and ensure it is protected. Diversity is essential in safeguarding our freedom of expression, the health of our democracy and the maintenance of our sovereignty.

Bill C-27 essentially addresses the risks facing individuals as a result of artificial intelligence. As others before us have done, we wish to emphasize how important it also is to consider the societal risks that artificial intelligence presents.

The purpose of the new legislation, stated in clause 4, and the definition of harm that appears in the text are too limited. Adopting wording found in the European Union's AI legislation, we suggest that one of the purposes of the new act be to protect the health, safety and fundamental Charter rights, including democracy—of which the diversity of cultural expressions is a pillar—and the rule of law, as well as the environment, from the harmful effects of AI systems.

The main theme for today's witnesses is copyright. That's heartening because we are convinced that Bill C-27 has a major role to play in this area.

The Canadian government recently conducted a consultation on the impact of generative AI on copyright. The cultural community's unanimous view is that, contrary to the widely held perception, Canadian copyright legislation doesn't need to be significantly modernized to protect rights holders in reaction to developments in generative AI. It already protects human creation and prohibits the unauthorized use of protected cultural content. However, as a result of a lack of transparency regarding the data used to drive AI systems, that act cannot be applied in an optimal fashion. This is where Bill C-27 must play a role.

Here are two specific potential solutions that would restore the Copyright Act to full effectiveness for the benefit of rights holders and Canadians as well.

We should draw on European AI legislation and go beyond the obligation to retain data records, as provided in the new subsection 7(2) proposed by amendment to Bill C-27 and, in particular, provide that a sufficiently detailed summary of the use of copyright-protected training data is made available to the public.

It should also be more clearly stated that Bill C-27 creates responsibilities with respect to the Copyright Act, as the European Union has done.

The accountability framework outlined in new subsection 12(5) moved by amendment to Bill C-27 could thus support policies and procedures concerning the Copyright Act and the use of an individual's voice, image or reputation.

These additions would be consistent with the regulations being introduced at the international level and would foster the development of a licensing market based on consent and remuneration of rights holders.

Thank you for your attention. I will be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Ms. Desrochers.

Go ahead, Mr. Forget.

[Dave Forget, National Executive Director, Directors Guild of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dear Chair and members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important work.

My name is Dave Forget, DGC's national executive director. With me today is Sam Bischoff, manager of policy and regulatory affairs. We appreciate the committee's invitation.

Generative AI threatens the ecosystem of creativity on an existential level. Creators should have the right to consent and be compensated whenever an AI entity uses their copyrighted content. As we stand at the crossroads of regulating AI to protect against harms, we believe it is crucial to protect creators from the economic and moral harms under AIDA.

The Directors Guild of Canada is a national labour organization that represents over 7,000 key creative and logistical personnel in film, television and digital media industries. Today it also includes over one thousand director members working across the country on screen-based programming.

The Canadian film and television sector generates massive amounts of value, employment and soft power. In 2021-22 the entire screen sector value chain directly contributed an estimated 337,000 jobs, $16.6 billion in labour income and $23.3 billion in GDP to the Canadian economy. However, artificial intelligence threatens the core of this ecosystem. Large language model developers are reproducing extensive amounts of creative works for commercial purposes without the authorization and fair compensation of authors.

Copyright remains a central framework law for governing our industry. Any unauthorized copying to train AI models is theft. Moreover, it is very difficult for rights holders to know when their works have been used without their consent in training AI models. Creators should be able to control whether their works are copied and used for mining purposes in the first place. Transparency in AI systems must be a prerequisite to defending authors' rights. This is a fundamental element to secure a future where human creativity can flourish.

In its current form, AIDA is failing to protect and uphold fundamental copyright principles. We need AIDA to do the following, consistent with the protections being provided to creators under the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, also known as EU AIA.

One, confirm that the use of copyright-protected content requires the authorization of the rights holder. This would be subject to the limited exception in copyright for technical ephemeral copying, which represents Canada’s very limited exception for text and data mining activities, to the extent that it applies.

Two, general-purpose AI systems like ChatGPT must be transparent about the materials used for training purposes. They should provide a description of information on the data used for training, testing and validation, as well as how this data was obtained and selected.

Three, providers of general-purpose AI models must be required to put in place a policy to respect Canadian law on copyright, including obtaining consent for text and data mining purposes. Any provider who makes available a general-purpose AI model in the Canadian market should comply with this obligation, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the AI training takes place.

I'll turn it over to Sam.

[Samuel Bischoff, Manager, Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Directors Guild of Canada]

Our European counterparts were able to secure these crucial rights to protect their cultural industries. There should be no reason the government can't provide the same level of protections in Canada. Large and well-funded platforms like Google, OpenAI and Microsoft should be required to operate on the same playing field in Canada as they will have to in the European Union.

The Canadian government must ensure that creators are fully empowered to exercise their rights and make informed decisions. We believe that, unlike the provisions of the EU AIA, which include an opt-out regime associated with a text and data mining exception, Canadian creators and rights holders should benefit from an opt-in system to license their works.

An AI tool cannot originate artistic work or supplant human creativity. The value of creativity is not captured or understood by the AI processes. Despite claims by the operators of these tools that their use is transformative, the reality is quite different. Generative AI tools do not genuinely transform. Instead, they exploit and launder the creative works they mine. It is imperative that authors receive fair compensation for the use of existing works and for all future uses.

Members of the committee, we thank you for your time. We would be pleased to respond to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

Now I will move on to Mr. Rogers.

The floor is yours.

[Patrick Rogers, Chief Executive Officer, Music Canada]

Good morning.

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss Bill C-27 with you from the perspective of Canada's major music labels.

Creating the rules of engagement for AI comes at an important time for the music industry, both here at home and abroad. I want to say, off the top, that our industry is already making use of positive elements of AI as a tool to help artists make more intriguing and interesting music, and using it, again as a tool, to help connect artists, including Canadian artists, with fans all around the world.

Those aspects are, of course, not the central domain of Bill C-27 or the reasons why there needs to be further regulation. I will dedicate the rest of my time to telling you where you can help us most.

As we saw with illegal downloading in the previous generation, the use and ownership of music is a valuable canary in the coal mine. Since then, we have learned the importance of regulating technology for its practical and common use rather than building exceptions into our laws and economic frameworks for corner cases. We've learned that the value of music and other forms of creative expression cannot be sacrificed to the drumbeat of technological revolution, and we've learned that quality, safe and licensed music is as popular with music fans as it is with the artists who are paid when their music is played.

That is why Music Canada is supportive of the efforts made in Bill C-27 regarding the regulation of generative AI.

There are three places where we would encourage you to go even further.

The first involves the need for AI developers to maintain and make available records of the material that was ingested and used for training. Much of the economic framework for the industries that will be affected by the further flourishing of AI requires that everyone understand what the AI is trained on. In order to truly understand that, developers must keep these records.

You will hear from the most excited proponents of unharnessed technology that this request is somewhere between missing the point and being impossible. I ask that the committee think about it in this way: If AI has the potential to cure diseases, design new and better cities for the future, and make travel plans for busy MPs a little more doable, then surely it can generate a spreadsheet or write a bibliography.

The second place the bill can go further is in requiring the labelling of solely AI-generated images and videos, especially in cases where they impersonate an individual. Right now, today, we are standing at the edge of the uncanny valley with AI. Once you learn what to look for, you can understand that the image of the pope in the white puffy jacket is not a photo of the pope, but this technology will never be worse than it is today. Every day it is getting better and, in many ways, more dangerous when it comes to the powerful potential for deception and misinformation. Requiring labelling is an important step towards addressing this.

The third is with respect to the need to address deepfakes and voice clones as a threat and to prepare our legal system so that we can all agree that the production of deepfakes and voice clones without the consent of the cloned person is wrong.

As elected members of Parliament, you know that it takes a lifetime to build the reputation that brings you to this House of Commons. You also know that it takes just one moment for that to come crashing down. Increasingly, this is a fact that people across all professions, livelihoods and ages are coming to grips with in the face of the proliferation of deepfakes and the ease with which they can be produced.

Abacus Data has found that exposure to deepfakes is common and that Canadians are worried about the risks. One out of every two Canadians has mistaken a deepfake for a real video. It's worse for younger Canadians, because 77% have been deceived and 15% say that it happens all the time. Canadians are worried about the effect of deepfakes on artists, political leaders and business leaders, but 79% of Canadians worry about it for themselves too. Almost unanimously, 93%, Canadians agree that there should be a right to prevent these impersonations.

Now is the time to strengthen Bill C-27 and all of our laws to ensure that antiquated analog laws that were once designed to protect celebrities' images from being used against their consent in magazine ads are prepared for the digital realities for everyone today.

Now, some will ask: What about free speech? When it comes to deepfakes, the answer is simple: Putting your words in my mouth is not free speech.

What about parody? Deepfakes aren't parody. They don't mimic with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect. They are done to deceive, misinform and steal one person's character for the advantage of another. We should make clear that in 2024, in a digital setting, that is illegal.

I thank you for your time and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to all of you.

Now, to start the discussion, I'll turn it over to Mr. Williams for six minutes.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses. This is always an important discussion, and it's great to hear from each one of you.

I want to start with the testimony from Madame Desrochers today.

You had two great recommendations at the end. I'm wondering if you could repeat them and elaborate on both.

Then I'm going to ask other witnesses to comment on those recommendations for proposed subsection 7(2), I think it was, and for proposed subsection 12(5).

[Marie-Julie Desrochers]

We can also provide you with more information in writing.

These recommendations are consistent with some of those prepared by my colleagues. I'd be pleased if one of my colleagues wished to comment.

Bill C-27 currently provides that data must be retained, but we think that's not enough and request that data be both retained and made available to the public.

Second, to make the Copyright Act more effective, we request that this be clearly stated in Bill C-27 in order to clarify certain obligations of transparency.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you.

For other witnesses who want to contribute to that, I think what we're talking about, then, is sourcing data. It seems, from all testimony, that everyone is in agreement that we want to see that.

Now, the question is whether that's in the Copyright Act, with other consultations now, or in AIDA itself. I understand that it's going to be in AIDA. There are certain parts that point to the Copyright Act, but that's what we want to see.

Do any witnesses want to talk about that or comment on that concern?

[Samuel Bischoff]

Yes. Thank you for the question.

Our view is that, while the Copyright Act offers a number of protections, when we look at the definition of “harm” within AIDA as it exists there currently, it is limited to individuals. Copyright law applies to individuals but also collectively, and we don't think that the current text offers enough protections in terms of copyright for rights holders, for creators or for authors.

We would like to see a specific policy and a specific provision that would indicate that copyright law applies to general-purpose AI systems.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

I know what one of the biggest concerns is. I mean, we have seen that ChatGPT has revolutionized and publicized AI and what it's capable of. Of course, we're talking about what's going to happen to creators in the music industry.

Mr. Rogers, there's an AI Instagram site called “There I Ruined It”. It takes certain music from one creator and merges it with another's. This morning, it was Hank Williams singing Still D.R.E., by Dr. Dre. They're able to take the music and bring it to another.... This is a parody site. I think they do a good job.

How is the music industry going to be transformed if we don't change the laws and make the correct changes to the law when it comes to music and the future of music in Canada?

[Patrick Rogers]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for the question.

Look, I think that ultimately it's very important for us at this stage to remember that the technology that can amuse us is the same that can terrify us. That site in particular is of interest, and it can make us laugh.

We may one day be in a position where those things can be licensed, but when those things are stolen, basically, the information and the data needed in order to create that is stripped from the Internet and copyright is infringed. All artists who are reproduced in that way have had it done without their consent and without compensation, and it is of great concern to us.

I think it is very important, as we reach out in this sort of first try, that we keep some of those core principles in mind. We know that we wouldn't accept that in any other fashion. The fact that it's done rapidly in large quantities doesn't make it any more legal.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Are you, then, on board with other recommendations that the source be published and that it be made public?

[Patrick Rogers]

Yes, absolutely. The only way copyright works is if we know what's in it. The only way we can know what's in it is if it's made broadly and widely available.

As I said in my opening statement, even if that's a really big spreadsheet, that shouldn't concern anyone.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Ms. Noble, you said that you represent 30,000 creators. I'm sure that a lot of them are small businesses, local artists who write a jingle for ads or who create their own music and aren't part of the bigger conglomerates. What can we do to protect those local creators? What parts of the act can we make sure are written for not just the big Metas and Googles and Amazons but also the local creators?

[Marie Kelly, National Executive Director, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists]

Thank you for that question.

Our members are actors. They are performers. They are in film and TV. They are on video games. They are very much subject to the deepfakes and abuses that are taking place. What we want to bring to light here is that when it comes to actors and performers, we are kind of on the outside looking in to the protections of copyright. We take a step back and say that the first problem for actors is that they don't have moral rights under the Copyright Act to protect them to begin with. Musicians got moral rights when Napster came in a couple of decades ago and started stealing their music. Today we have the same situation with deepfakes stealing the image of performers. We don't have moral rights in the Copyright Act. We say that needs to be taken care of right away.

When we look at Bill C-27, we also see that under the definition of harm, you have “physical or psychological harm”. I would suggest that if we have to prove psychological harm, we'll have to get the DSM out, put it down on a table in a court of law, and explain the condition that was produced. That can't be the level for a performer. Then there's “damage to an individual’s property”. As I just told you, we don't have copyright protection. Now we go to the third one, “economic loss to an individual”. What we have to understand is that performers are precarious workers. Every day they audition for the next job. It might be one day on set in a series or a film. Every day they have to look for that job. How do they prove that they didn't get that role in Law & Order? How do they prove that as an economic loss?

We need to have the damage to an individual's reputation. Eleanor Noble makes a living based on what you see here. Her name, her image, her likeness, she caretakes that with everything she does, whether business or personal, because she knows that her next gig relies on it, and yet she is subject to the deepfakes that are happening out there.

Our data is easily captured now. Everything is streamed. Everything is on your phone. It's on your computer. It's readily available to be grabbed and used or misused. We really need this committee to take a look at the impact for performers in this country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Turnbull, go ahead.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you to all of you for being here.

I really appreciate your raising your voices in this important conversation. You all represent incredibly important players and members who are across our creative industries and whom I think we're all deeply concerned about when it comes to AI and the harms it can cause to individuals who are earning their living and who, in many cases, I think, develop that reputation over many years and with lots of hard work. I empathize with all of your positions. I've read a lot of your submissions and materials in advance. I really appreciate your being here. Let me just start with that.

One thing I keep hearing is conversations on intersecting with copyright. That's fair enough. I get that there are intersections of Bill C-27 and copyright, although we know that Bill C-27 doesn't deal with copyright. The Government of Canada is doing consultations and round tables. They have done seven round tables already.

I want to start by asking each one of you—maybe one representative from each group—if you have been consulted and are participating in the copyright consultation process. The Government of Canada is looking at whether this conversation merits amendments to the Copyright Act as a separate process, but not involved in the scope of this bill.

Ms. Noble or Ms. Kelly, has ACTRA been involved in that consultation?

[Marie Kelly]

Yes, we have. We have been speaking and consulting on that. I have to say that we would very much like to have a meeting with the minister. We haven't yet been able to have that meeting. We are a bit concerned that the arts industry seems to be left out of that conversation. However, we have met with staff.